Poll: Is Gore Truly Scary?
- Thread starter wookiee777
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It can be, but I think the feeling most would associate with it is revulsion rather than horror. Body horror on the other hand (which I would closely associate with gore) is something that plays on the fear of losing control of your own body in a very fundamental way, and is considerably more effective.
A head exploding: awesome.
A head turning into a sickly (but still recognizable) parody of a human: terrifying.
A head exploding: awesome.
A head turning into a sickly (but still recognizable) parody of a human: terrifying.
Gore in and of itself is not scary. It can be horrifying, but that is not scary. Buuuuuut... Things that horrify are an important part of a scary movie. Would The Fly have been as scary if Jeff Goldblums transformation had been less horrifying (which means less gorey)? Yes, I think so. Similarly, John Carpenter's The Thing would not have been as scary or effective as it is if the titular thing was not horrifying. Basically, it is a tool that can be used it enhance scares when used by a competent directer. 
I say it depends on the context.
In Bulletstorm you are in control of the gore itself, and it loses any chance of being scary because *YOU* are the one doing it. In fact, it gains a bit of a comedic essence. See The Darkness 2, as well.
Now, when you aren't the one dishing it out, but it has a chance of happening to *YOU*, things change. Lets look at SH: Homecoming (regardless of your stance on the game itself). All the gore in that game is basically the punishment for being unawares, and the most disturbing moments occur when you fail to complete a QTE, or watch the main characters parents get split in half. That's when it's scary, because it's actually making you, the player/character, the only victim of it. It likely wouldn't have the same effect if you were carving monsters in half along the way either.
In Bulletstorm you are in control of the gore itself, and it loses any chance of being scary because *YOU* are the one doing it. In fact, it gains a bit of a comedic essence. See The Darkness 2, as well.
Now, when you aren't the one dishing it out, but it has a chance of happening to *YOU*, things change. Lets look at SH: Homecoming (regardless of your stance on the game itself). All the gore in that game is basically the punishment for being unawares, and the most disturbing moments occur when you fail to complete a QTE, or watch the main characters parents get split in half. That's when it's scary, because it's actually making you, the player/character, the only victim of it. It likely wouldn't have the same effect if you were carving monsters in half along the way either.
I love gore!! I play Killing Floor because I love seeing zombie heads explode when I shoot them.
I also love zombies because of the gore.
And my favourite CoD was WaW because you could blow people's arms off with an anti-material rifle.
Games need more gore, stop pandering to the parents of widdle kiddies who want to buy video games.
I also love zombies because of the gore.
And my favourite CoD was WaW because you could blow people's arms off with an anti-material rifle.
Games need more gore, stop pandering to the parents of widdle kiddies who want to buy video games.
No. If it's done well then it is at best shocking, which only tricks you into thinking you're scared. Same as the deal with jump-scares. Real horror is more subtle then that.
Gore can be scary, if used well. A good portion of fear is the unknown, but I think another portion is the worst realization of something that we're anticipating, often in an unexpected (yet instantly understandable) way. For instance, to me, being in a room full of spiders is pretty scary, but just having the spiders eat the person? Well yeah, kind of disturbing, but not really horrifying. I mean, it's a room full of spiders, what did you expect would happen? Horrifying might be having the people think they escaped just fine with a couple of bites, but then having had an egg sack become implanted in someones eyeball and then having the baby spiders eat their way out and swiftly spreading all over their body. To me, that would be kind of horrifying, and pretty gory. For instance, in paranormal activity 4 (which sucked btw), the only part that I really felt built real tension
It's all about mixing visceral and psychological elements. The new Silent Hill film, unfortunately, COMPLETELY misses the point, and forgets that the games are scary because they DON'T just rely on gore to disturb the audience.
I think Cronenberg does a good job with that. Though, if you're pretty well immune to being scared by any brand of physical duress, then obviously that stuff won't work for you.
Pure gore though? Eh. We've all been so inundated with violence that I think most of us are desensitized to straight gore.
was the knife scene, and they wasted that potential by not really doing anything with it.
I think Cronenberg does a good job with that. Though, if you're pretty well immune to being scared by any brand of physical duress, then obviously that stuff won't work for you.
Pure gore though? Eh. We've all been so inundated with violence that I think most of us are desensitized to straight gore.
Gore, by itself, isnt all that scary. Its one of the reasons I dont waste my time with the Saw movies. Drenching the film roll with blood doesnt scare people.
What really scares people is the unkown and what dangers my be lurking.
What really scares people is the unkown and what dangers my be lurking.
I don't find it scary, but disturbing.
I tend to freak our more if there's less blood actually, especially if it looks real. That's what made the demo for The Last Of Us kind of rattle my cage. It just seems more realistic than "this one wound has lost more blood than the human body even holds".
That said, gore of not, I start covering my eyes once teeth and nails start getting messed with.
I tend to freak our more if there's less blood actually, especially if it looks real. That's what made the demo for The Last Of Us kind of rattle my cage. It just seems more realistic than "this one wound has lost more blood than the human body even holds".
That said, gore of not, I start covering my eyes once teeth and nails start getting messed with.
Not sure it's meant to be proper 'scary' - the way I see it it's used mostly to induce discomfort, as we all - well, most of us - like to remain physically intact. When watching skater or parkour clips where people deliberately risk life and limb and sometimes have very unpleasant encounters with stationary objects and the forces of gravity, most viewers will experience a solid, gut-wrenching feeling of discomfort, as the pain observed is very real, and anyone who has experienced a crash or fall similar to the one observed is bound to relate to it on a very, very basic level, without thinking too much about it.
Gore, to me, is different on many a level, as the body horror, the disintegration of the human physique and the buckets of blood are generally well-crafted displays of a very specific art, that of the special effects and makeup artists. Within the story/action of the movie, they are to be taken at face value and can cause discomfort in the viewer (we're not talking about the minority that's getting aroused here), but I think it really works best as a tool, a means, one chord in the piece that is the whole movie with an at least somewhat coherent story and - cherry on top - a moral dilemma of sorts.
I think Evil Dead does the nasty bits quite well, even though it was dirt cheap to produce. The pencil bit always gets to me, as it is just nasty. The makeup effects were more impressive twenty years back, but that's pretty much a given. The trees of rage and rape still disturb me, but I've repeatedly used them to approach the real issue of rape of women, which is normally not done by animated trees.
As for the remake - rot in hell. Then again, in this genre, we need to stick together so I'll definitely go watch it. But I think it's bad style to remake the already struggling classics of a fringe genre, come up with some new shit of your own, gosh darn it please with sugar frosting on top.
Army of Darkness is one of my favourite movies, I prefer the Singapore cut. I never got it and I never will why some of the best scenes of this movie have to be cut in 90% of all editions, it's a shame of Lucasian proportions. The windmill scene just needs to be complete and best left alone. It's a hilarious movie and the best work of Bruce Campbell so far. This is the only movie that sees me sad because there never was a second serving of sorts. It's absolutely not in my body horror/gore bin, though. It's more of an over-the-top slapstick comedy with tiny minute horror elements in it.
Gore, to me, is different on many a level, as the body horror, the disintegration of the human physique and the buckets of blood are generally well-crafted displays of a very specific art, that of the special effects and makeup artists. Within the story/action of the movie, they are to be taken at face value and can cause discomfort in the viewer (we're not talking about the minority that's getting aroused here), but I think it really works best as a tool, a means, one chord in the piece that is the whole movie with an at least somewhat coherent story and - cherry on top - a moral dilemma of sorts.
I think Evil Dead does the nasty bits quite well, even though it was dirt cheap to produce. The pencil bit always gets to me, as it is just nasty. The makeup effects were more impressive twenty years back, but that's pretty much a given. The trees of rage and rape still disturb me, but I've repeatedly used them to approach the real issue of rape of women, which is normally not done by animated trees.
As for the remake - rot in hell. Then again, in this genre, we need to stick together so I'll definitely go watch it. But I think it's bad style to remake the already struggling classics of a fringe genre, come up with some new shit of your own, gosh darn it please with sugar frosting on top.
Army of Darkness is one of my favourite movies, I prefer the Singapore cut. I never got it and I never will why some of the best scenes of this movie have to be cut in 90% of all editions, it's a shame of Lucasian proportions. The windmill scene just needs to be complete and best left alone. It's a hilarious movie and the best work of Bruce Campbell so far. This is the only movie that sees me sad because there never was a second serving of sorts. It's absolutely not in my body horror/gore bin, though. It's more of an over-the-top slapstick comedy with tiny minute horror elements in it.
Gore is more disturbing than scary.
Seeing someone getting eviscerated, having fountains of blood coming out of a body, or limbs flying in the air and landing all over the place, does not instill the same amount of psychological scares are phobias, unseen dangers and figures, and a slow, impending doom that is unknown to the audience.
Seeing someone getting eviscerated, having fountains of blood coming out of a body, or limbs flying in the air and landing all over the place, does not instill the same amount of psychological scares are phobias, unseen dangers and figures, and a slow, impending doom that is unknown to the audience.
![[Kira Must Die]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/68/68539.jpg?1620622912){kind=avatar}
N'really. I voted "other".
It's not necessarily scary; it's disturbing. People MIGHT concider this scary, when they're afraid of gore. If they're not (like me), It's just disturbing.
I don't find it disturbing, either, because it's just a movie. I was massively disappointed when I went to see a Saw movie in the local cinema.
It's not necessarily scary; it's disturbing. People MIGHT concider this scary, when they're afraid of gore. If they're not (like me), It's just disturbing.
I don't find it disturbing, either, because it's just a movie. I was massively disappointed when I went to see a Saw movie in the local cinema.
Generally no, but it can be mildly disturbing if done right (I have yet to see a game do it better then Condemned). However, that doesn't mean it can't freak people out. In a video game I could pummel an old lady to death with a piece semi sharp metal shrapnel and I wouldn't care, but in real life nosebleeds make my skin crawl. Depends on the context really.
And I find it truly horrifying that people make those...StBishop said:
Anyway, on topic. I actually voted 'yes', but I say that with the caveat that a LITTLE gore is scary, a LOT of gore is just silly and fun.
Take Dawn of War 1-2 for instance, there are kill animations there so filled with puffs of red blood that you'd think the subject to it would be nothing but a baloon filled with it, it makes it silly and nothing you take seriously.
But in Dark Messiah, an old game, I know, there's this dream where you stab your dance-partner, and even though there's very little blood, it comes across as far worse than the earlier example.
...then again I guess this could aslo be phrased "Is violence scary?" :-/